UK UK - Corrie McKeague, 23, Bury St Edmunds, 24 September 2016 #22

[jessie]

Any update on LF search? Did it start as scheduled?

MSM covered it but in this link I think this paper provided new pictures of the site. Interesting if one has a grasp of the area and can compare with the previous search. I find it difficult to understand, but others probably can:

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4750211/corrie-mckeague-search-raf-airman-suffolk-landfill-missing/

 

[Miss_French]

"A review into Suffolk police’s investigation of missing Corrie McKeague has concluded it was “thorough, methodical and detailed” – and he is most likely to be in the Milton landfill where searches have been held. The report concludes that police....explored all reasonable lines of inquiry with no new further leads needing to be pursued."

http://www.eadt.co.uk/news/missing-...olice-explored-all-reasonable-lines-1-5255089

 

[Scorpio1]

"A review into Suffolk police’s investigation of missing Corrie McKeague has concluded it was “thorough, methodical and detailed” – and he is most likely to be in the Milton landfill where searches have been held. The report concludes that police....explored all reasonable lines of inquiry with no new further leads needing to be pursued."

http://www.eadt.co.uk/news/missing-...olice-explored-all-reasonable-lines-1-5255089

Suffolk Constabulary confirmed today that it had received the report into the missing RAF Honington airman but said it would not be made public due to operationally sensitive material.
A spokesman for Suffolk police said today: “The report concludes that police have conducted a thorough, methodical and detailed investigation and explored all reasonable lines of inquiry with no new further leads needing to be pursued.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
So they are not going to make the report public , IMO they are saying if he is not found in the landfill in the next few weeks they have explored all lines of inquiry, what would they be trying to hide by not making the report public, if they are so sure he is in the landfill then they can't have nothing to hide, What sensitive material would they be talking about that can't be made public,

 

[Shiressleuth]

Suffolk Constabulary confirmed today that it had received the report into the missing RAF Honington airman but said it would not be made public due to operationally sensitive material.
A spokesman for Suffolk police said today: “The report concludes that police have conducted a thorough, methodical and detailed investigation and explored all reasonable lines of inquiry with no new further leads needing to be pursued.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
So they are not going to make the report public , IMO they are saying if he is not found in the landfill in the next few weeks they have explored all lines of inquiry, what would they be trying to hide by not making the report public, if they are so sure he is in the landfill then they can't have nothing to hide, What sensitive material would they be talking about that can't be made public,

The only sensitive info I can think of is the socializing habits of serving RAF personnel. JMO

 

[Ironside]

Scorpio why do you think the police should make the report public? It was an internal enquiry. Police just don't release that sort of stuff.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[tree1]

IMO I always thought the review would support Suffolk police. Due to blame from some quarters into how the investigation was conducted, I think a bit of removing the tarnish from their reputation at play here. I think it would have had to be a major breakthrough uncovered by review team to change their opinion. I stress I have no opinion either way about how the investigation was conducted other than maybe sightings were not thoroughly investigated but even that may be down to what was made public by the media and family.Ended up not knowing what was fact or rumours, not helped by the public point scoring exercise by NU and MM. Muddied the waters in my opinion.

 

[Scorpio1]

operationally sensitive material.
~~~~~~~~~~
IMO this is not wording the police would normaly use in a missing persons enquiry , it's more the sort of thing the MOD would say, then I'm thinking maybe the MOD have more power then the police in this investergation,

 

[Scorpio1]

GCHQ, IMO they have to be involved in this case along with the MOD,, they are the big guns, they control what is put out to the media and to the general public , censorship that we should not know about,

 

[Greater Than]

operationally sensitive material.
~~~~~~~~~~
IMO this is not wording the police would normaly use in a missing persons enquiry , it's more the sort of thing the MOD would say, then I'm thinking maybe the MOD have more power then the police in this investergation,

Scorpio1, the independent review was conducted by a special operations unit, thus their report contains operationally sensitive material.

The East Midlands Special Operations Unit (EMSOU) is a collaborative team uniting specialist officers and staff from the region’s five police forces (Derbyshire, Leicestershire, Lincolnshire, Northamptonshire, Nottinghamshire) in tackling major crime, and serious and organised crime.

http://www.forces.net/news/review-c...es-missing-corrie-mckeague-case-were-explored

 

[UKGuy]

Sure maybe the guy did a lot of stuff, but surely not sleeping in a rubbish bin, the family must be seriously pissed at that, looks to me as if Foul Play is at work here?

<modsnip>

 

[Antonia]

"A review into Suffolk police&#8217;s investigation of missing Corrie McKeague has concluded it was &#8220;thorough, methodical and detailed&#8221; &#8211; and he is most likely to be in the Milton landfill where searches have been held. The report concludes that police....explored all reasonable lines of inquiry with no new further leads needing to be pursued."

http://www.eadt.co.uk/news/missing-...olice-explored-all-reasonable-lines-1-5255089

It seems pretty obvious, IMO, that the review led to the recent attempts to trace further witnesses and re-starting the landfill search, which suggests flaws in the investigation, or shortcomings at least. Certainly less than "thorough, methodical and detailed".

Also, SP took Biffa's word for it about the bin weight, rather than looking at the records themselves. The lower bin weight, waste-sorting procedures and lack of DNA in the bin or bin lorry was enough to say that he was not in the landfill and there was no point searching it. Then SP decided the higher bin weight meant Corrie must have been in the bin, regardless of waste-sorting and lack of DNA.

They searched the landfill for weeks and didn't find him, and we were told it was right to stop the search. Now it's right to start the landfill search again (and that's only possible because the family's actions led SP to stop Cell 22 being filled-in/used again). SP insisted they were right to stop the search, now they say the opposite and that they're right this time.

I realise SP will have a lot more information than they have released, but with so many apparent inconsistencies and contradictions, it's difficult to see how anyone can have any faith in the investigation, and easy to see why SP would want to withhold the report.

 

[Miss_French]

GCHQ, IMO they have to be involved in this case along with the MOD,, they are the big guns, they control what is put out to the media and to the general public , censorship that we should not know about,

Media liaison in cases like this is not the role of GCHQ. The different arms of the military have their own media departments who deal with the press for the big stories. They will even decide if it's worth asking for an apology or retraction. Bases will then have an admin officer who has had media liason training and will deal with any direct requests for information, put out stories that are good local PR and advise when there are tv appearances by personnel.

 

[Shiressleuth]

Media liaison in cases like this is not the role of GCHQ. The different arms of the military have their own media departments who deal with the press for the big stories. They will even decide if it's worth asking for an apology or retraction. Bases will then have an admin officer who has had media liason training and will deal with any direct requests for information, put out stories that are good local PR and advise when there are tv appearances by personnel.

I wonder if the MOD will get a copy of this operationally sensitive report? Would that be usual as it is only an internal report? Also, does this also mean the family won't see it or the taxpayers who funded the whole investigation? They could always redact parts of the report. It smacks of cover up, I am sorry to say IMO.

 

[Taskforce88]

So what is the "operationally sensitive" material?

Is it regarding the RAF regiment/military in general or undercover police officers, informants etc?

 

[sar2them1984]

Could the operationally sensitive material be in connection with such things such as the comings and goings of personnel - entry and exit of base, time off etc. I know MOD tightened up on all of this following concerns that military bases could be potential terrorist targets, perhaps the info contains details which, if in the wrong hands could be helpful in a planned attack

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

 

[Amonet]

So what is the "operationally sensitive" material?

Is it regarding the RAF regiment/military in general or undercover police officers, informants etc?

I would think it has to do with police operations, but I don't know exactly what. Surely it would mean things they do to find missing persons in cases where there might be foul play, things they don't want to give away to someone thinking of committing murder and hiding the body?

 

[Ironside]

The area around Red Lodge was searched to rule out the notion that CM somehow crawled from the bin lorry there

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-england-suffolk-41802293


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[MelmothTheLost]

So what is the "operationally sensitive" material?

Is it regarding the RAF regiment/military in general or undercover police officers, informants etc?

Possibly individuals put under surveillance or those whose communications were tapped, including members of the family.

 

[Antonia]

Media liaison in cases like this is not the role of GCHQ. The different arms of the military have their own media departments who deal with the press for the big stories. They will even decide if it's worth asking for an apology or retraction. Bases will then have an admin officer who has had media liason training and will deal with any direct requests for information, put out stories that are good local PR and advise when there are tv appearances by personnel.

It's interesting that Forces TV has been quite critical of SP in their reports about Corrie, eg http://videos.forces.tv/detail/vide...522001/missing-corrie-mckeague:-six-months-on

I think it's separate from the MoD, but I'd be surprised if Forces TV were completely outside MoD's control.

I'm not entirely sure what I'm getting at, it's just curious... or maybe I'm starting to think out loud too often!

 

[Miss_French]

It's interesting that Forces TV has been quite critical of SP in their reports about Corrie, eg http://videos.forces.tv/detail/vide...522001/missing-corrie-mckeague:-six-months-on

I think it's separate from the MoD, but I'd be surprised if Forces TV were completely outside MoD's control.

I'm not entirely sure what I'm getting at, it's just curious... or maybe I'm starting to think out loud too often!

The MOD awards the contract for provision of entertainment (tv, radio, shows, cinema etc) to the Forces, of which Forces TV is an element. However, that service is independent of the MOD because it's has its own funding from adverts.